Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what got us out of the same depression, a balanced budget?
WW II.
For you, WW II started in 1941, but for the rest of the world, it started in 1938, and you sold them lots of war materiel.
Economically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
How about you grow a set and explain how you'd do that. The vast majority of the budget is Social Security, Medicare, interest on the debt, the military are about 70% of the budget.
It's easy, since Social Security and Medicare are not part of the budget. It's disingenuous to lump them together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
Good luck cutting any of those. Bush couldn't even get a minor change in social security done when he had a Republican House and Senate.
Why would Social Security have to be cut?
Social Security is underfunded. That is one reason (but not the only reason) it is in trouble. What idiot seriously thought you could fund Social Security in perpetuity with a 1% payroll tax?
The last time there was an increase in the FICA tax was 1990 when it went from 6.06% to 6.2%. The FICA tax rate should be 9+% now if Blow Job Bill, Bush the Younger and The Boy King had done their jobs.
You can fund Social Security through ~2040 by eliminating the wage/salary cap, increasing the FICA rate immediately to 9.2% and then step increasing to 16.4% through 2025, and means-testing beneficiaries, with a cut-off somewhere between 150% to 175% of "poverty" level.
After 2040, you cannot fund it. You'll have to find an alternative program, preferably one where the government mandates the percent of payroll required to be saved, and that money goes into the financial institution of the employee's choice.
As far as Medicare, it's dead in the water. You'll have to eliminate the wage/salary cap for that, increase the SECA tax rate, means-test, and use some kind of "death panel" to scrutinize costs. Medicare begged Congress to raise the SECA rate to 3.12% or cut Medicare spending by 17% in June 2011, but Congress did neither. Now Medicare is asking for an higher SECA rate or even higher cuts, and Congress won't do either during a major election year.
No matter what you do, your economy will be irreparably harmed. A huge chunk of your economy is health care spending. Cut Medicare and you lose jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
You're saying things can be fixed by cutting, show the data. If you don't have any data to back up your opinion then it is utterly worthless and you shouldn't be sharing it with people.
Things can be fixed by cutting the budget, and you should follow your own example.
Budgetarily....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
The Bush tax cuts were never intended to be permanent, and have done nothing to prevent the economic mess we are currently in. In fact, if anything, it made it worse. In contrast, the Clinton's taxes gave us the most prosperous economy in living memory. It's a no brainer. Trickle down has been a disaster for everyone but the rich.
No, that is not what happened. Obviously you failed US History and World History. REDO FROM START.
Historically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
just default, it would get rid of all debt and force the feds to have budgets that are fiscally responsible, instead of debt ridden.
No country has ever defaulted on its debt.
However, several countries have defaulted on debt payments.
Learn and understand the difference. Defaulting on debt and defaulting on debt payments are not the same thing
The point was... We are still in, or are in another, recession. It will be officially called s such in November or December. So according to the Democrats including Obama and Clinton, we should not be raising taxes.
Deflection. My post was addressing this post of yours. Would you mind explaining THAT post of yours?
PS. There is a definition of a recession, and by that definition, we have not been in a recession since June 2009. Now, if you were making an argument about slow recovery, you'd actually have a point. But then, we could always debate why the slower recovery, and is it really slow considering things were worse for much longer to recover from 2001 recession?
Let's be honest for a minute. Even if all the Bush II tax cuts were relaxed, we would only be going back the the Clinton era tax levels. This was not the end of the world. I understand the logic of extending the cuts a bit because of the recession and constrained demand. But it is only a defibrillator treatment for the economy, not a sustainable tax policy.
The drive by the GOP to make all the tax cuts permanent, and to call any sensible expiration of these tax cuts to be a massive tax hike, is nothing less than an insurgent strategy straight from Grover Norquist. The only way to balance the budget at such low tax rates is to axe thousands of federal jobs and benefits for the poorest in society in these difficult times, permanently. Taking the axe to the government is a far right wet dream, but undermining basic services and destroying middle class jobs is not going to make our country stronger. It is an aggressive, almost fascist agenda, and considering the dire straights of the middle class, spectacularly foolish.
I know that I, and I suspect most of you, were doing better in the Clinton years. So returning to some fo those fiscal policies sounds much better than what we have now.
The thing you might be over looking, is that we are not in good economic times, this is not the 1990s. If we increase the tax burdens, and compound them with the ACA and all the new EPA regulations, it will result in an economic downturn, and we are already teetering on the edge of a depression.
The thing you might be over looking, is that we are not in good economic times, this is not the 1990s. If we increase the tax burdens, and compound them with the ACA and all the new EPA regulations, it will result in an economic downturn, and we are already teetering on the edge of a depression.
There was an extremely slow recovery out of 2001 recession. And we had a massive recession in 2008-2009. BOTH happened during a period of low tax rates. So, if you want to blame higher taxes for causing recession, I take it you won't apply the same idea to lower tax rates? It would be right in your ally of being that typical right winger.
Gains on 401K's within an IRA are treated as ordinary income when they are closed out, although the gains are sheltered before withdrawal.
The top income earners don't really have to be concerned about 401k's, huge amounts of their stock, valuables, real estate holdings are only taxed at the capital gains rate, individuals in the top brackets benefit the most from the preferential tax treatment.
The capital gains tax rate applies to everyone. It applies to every home sold in the U.S., so it benefits every homeowner. It applies to every stock and bond sold in the U.S., so it benefits every investor and saver. It applies to every small business sold in the U.S., so it benefits every small business owner.
If a low capital gains tax rate allows a small business owner, a retiring homeowner who's downsizing, etc., to keep more of what he/she worked for after thirty years of sacrifice and hard work, how is that bad?
For you, WW II started in 1941, but for the rest of the world, it started in 1938, and you sold them lots of war materiel.
Economically...
Mircea
The war created jobs, factories, seems like overspending got us out of the last depression.
Agree on SS and Medicare something has to give they should have increase donations or incorporated means testing for SS, the longer they wait the worse the problem will become.
So does continued tax cut under $250K. No? In fact, continued tax cuts to lesser income groups isn't a luxury to a select group... investments, playing in Wall Street with major risks, are a luxury to most Americans, however.
The capital gains tax rate applies to everyone. It applies to every home sold in the U.S., so it benefits every homeowner. It applies to every stock and bond sold in the U.S., so it benefits every investor and saver. It applies to every small business sold in the U.S., so it benefits every small business owner.
If a low capital gains tax rate allows a small business owner, a retiring homeowner who's downsizing, etc., to keep more of what he/she worked for after thirty years of sacrifice and hard work, how is that bad?
Yes it benefits just about everyone, but greatly benefits a select few at the top, those lving on the lower end with less excess income not so much.
I've already done so. We are still in, or are in another, recession. Obama's and the Dems' claim is that you do not raise taxes in a recession.
Like I said, the recession will be officially called in November or December. Watch for it.
The first step would be an acknowledgement that 2008-2009 were better economic times than 2010-present. Have you done that? Nope.
And you won't. Because that would negate THAT post of yours, that you won't dare touch anymore much less explain. So, you'd rather claim... but I have done so and run around in circles. I have seen that before, and will surely see it again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
